Regina v Plevac - [2004] NSWSC 916

CITATION: Regina v Plevac [2004] NSWSC 916

HEARING DATE(S): 23/09/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1

DECISION: Life sentence redetermined

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - murder - life sentence redetermination - prisoner murdered his wife

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v Bugmy (1990) 169 CLR 525
R v Bush: unreported, NSWSC 25 September 1992
R v Everett: unreported, NSWCCA 13 December 1995
R v Peacock: unreported, NSWSC 24 April 1992
R v Rosevear [1999] NSWSC 732
R v Stephens [1999] NSWCCA 80
R v Whitmore [1999] NSWCCA 75

PARTIES :
Regina v Josef PLEVAC

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 02/002

COUNSEL: A Haesler/W Laing - Applicant
P G Ingram - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid
S C Kavanagh

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70041/90

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : McInerney J

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

14 October 2004

02/002 – Regina v Josef PLEVAC
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Josef Plevac pursuant to sch 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for the determination of a term of imprisonment and a non-parole period to replace a sentence of imprisonment for life, which was imposed on the applicant by McInerney J on 28 August 1996, after a jury in a trial conducted before McInerney J had found the applicant guilty of the murder of his wife Dana Plevac on 22 September 1989.

2 The applicant has continued to deny that he murdered his wife but in the reply to the statement of facts filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to Practice Note 57 accepted that the Director’s statement of facts set out the Crown case on which he was convicted and the following statement of the facts of the case and the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant is taken from the Director’s statement.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3 The applicant and his wife Dana Plevac had separated in October 1988. They had a daughter Natalie who was five years old at the time of the murder. An apprehended domestic violence order which restrained the applicant from approaching his wife and daughter was in force at the time of the murder.

4 In February 1989 the applicant himself suffered serious burns causing scarring in a fire in the house in which he was living. The burns became infected and the applicant was admitted to hospital.

5 On 19 September 1989 while he was in hospital the applicant told his daughters from a previous marriage who were visiting him, that he still loved his wife and wanted her back. He spoke to his daughters about how scarred and ugly he was and said that he wanted his wife to feel the same pain he was feeling.

6 At about 6.30 in the morning of 22 September 1989 the applicant, who was working as a milkman, went to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Regina v Plevac

Details

AGLC: Regina v Plevac [2004] NSWSC 916
Case: [2004] NSWSC 916
Decision Date: 14 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Plevac, the High Court of Australia revisited the sentencing of the appellant, who was convicted of murdering his wife. The appeal centred on the appropriateness of the life sentence handed down to the appellant, with the focus on whether the original sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the heinous nature of the offence.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing in cases of murder, particularly the requirement for a sentence to reflect the gravity of the crime and to serve as a deterrent. The court had to consider whether the original sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate and whether the principles of proportionality and deterrence had been adequately applied in the appellant's case.

The High Court, in its judgment, determined that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court held that the life sentence did not adequately reflect the heinous nature of the crime, nor did it appropriately serve as a deterrent. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that properly accounts for the gravity of the offence and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Consequently, the High Court ordered a redetermination of the sentence to ensure it met these criteria.

The High Court did not specify the precise nature of the new sentence but directed that the redetermination process should take into account the principles outlined in the judgment. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious crimes, such as murder, adequately reflect the severity of the offence and serve their intended purposes.

Orders